G'day OzSpen.

On this point you stalled on :

<<Evangelicals are often denigrated as fundamentalists, who essentially believe more as you do, that the scripture should be taken at face value, ignoring conflicting scriptures as requiring the guidance of the Holy Spirit for its interpretation.>>

It's one of my flat earth statements which hold truth, but is an oblique view I admit, and you are correct to pull it out for examination.

I was attempting to stimulate discussion with our regular poster AC, who is a refreshing thinker on most subjects. His appearance on this thread proves the point.

I've learned the lesson in life long ago, and now have a first base statement in my head whenever I embark on a mission of whatever it may be; "NOTHING is simple".

I apply that here too to the point you raised.

I have many many good friends however, who are evangelical in their thinking. They are always the most refreshing people to be with.
It's their simple faith in the message of Christ. Their straightforward application of it in the worlds in which they live. And mostly I would describe their lives as uncomplicated.

So as you may conclude, I sometimes struggle with their simple views, and criticise them quitely to myself as a rule. But their application of simplicity to their Christian belief is endearing.

Using those people as an example for the question to be asked, how far should the scriptures be progressively dismantled in attempts to find other than their first stated and obvious meaning, is a debatable point to me.

Now returning to the point you raised. The Bible is an intriguing piece of literature.
What a shame I feel, the book of Enoch was removed. What difference do you believe, the message in that lost work would make, to the point you and the Sells are contesting?
Keeping in mind, during the life of Christ, this was a highly visible work which early Christians were gifted with.

Dan.

Hey diver dan,
"Then you conclude, if there is need for debate regarding the basics of the belief system, then how can you believe becoming a Christian will bring you benefit, and not simply more confusion."

I have many thoughts and opinions in regards to religion;
And probably not nearly enough time, patience or word count to address it all.

I'm not saying there aren't benefits in becoming a Christian 'Pro's';
(Talking as an agnostic though, meaning - 'in this life');
I'm just saying that I acknowledge there's a least a few 'Cons'.

All this stuff are secondary issues though

If you go back to the primary issue with me;
And ask me he number 1 question 'Do you believe in God?'
My answer is going to be 'I don't know'.

Now OzSpen would argue I'm wrong because this scripture over here says this and this scripture over there says that;
Backing up his arguments with more scripture;
"...after 55 years as a Christian, I have not found one I'm unable to resolve."

But here's the catch.

'Thou shalt not bear false witness.'

I can't say I know god exists and that I believe in him, when I don't know.

I could talk more about this issue but my heads throbbing already so maybe I'll come back and touch on it more tomorrow.

"There are options for you. The simple answer is this. There are two basic schools of thought. One less described among themselves as liberal Christians, (viz Sellec); the other as Evangelical, (viz OzSpen)."

Thanks for explaining this in a way where I better understand whats going on here, though I still don't think I entirely get it all.